Las amenazaban las lágrimas

Las amenazaban las lágrimas
 

Sintió que las amenazaban las lágrimas

The context is unequivocal: it's a person who feels like crying. Why las?

It's more than one person about to cry.
She or he felt that tears were menacing them ( I assume that means were on the verge of tears)

I agree with Tyrn's assertion that a solitary person was feeling that tears were threatening.

A so-called redundant direct object pronoun appears in this sentence, which is the crux of the question being asked here.
The threat (the harm about to occur) is expressed by the direct object (the tears). There could also be an indirect object, indicating who is being threatened, but it's been omitted, since its referent is the subject (who is a woman, by the way).

Throwing in a redundant object pronoun is a common practice. Here it serves to emphasize the threat, since the next sentence in the book (not given above) has her tears stinging her eyes and her nose.

Thanks! I am not quite sure how this sentence should look like without the redundant object pronoun :thinking:

Just remove it. It is only there for emphasis. Without it, the sentence still means the same thing.

I think this was a typo.
Although it could be the case of a redundant DO, I think it should have been "lo/la amenazaban las lágrimas". Printing errors happen. :)

The English sentence, the source used for the Spanish translation appearing in the initial post, has a woman playing the role of subject.

If we throw out the idea of a redundant direct object pronoun, we'd be ruling in the possibility of having an indirect object pronoun to indicate whom is being threatened. Shouldn't 'le' be the substitute in that case?

If this is a woman, then it's "la amenazaban las lágrimas".
If we say "le amenazaban las lágrimas", this would be a case of "leísmo". :)
The verb "amenazar" takes a DO.

The subject of sentir is a woman, according to the context in the book from which the sentence was taken.
If we're to assume that a typo was introduced, I see 'las lágrimas' as being the direct object of amenazar and the threatened woman as the indirect object (DPD, construction 1b). If the DO is the contextual woman (construction 1a, in the DPD), then the threat (las lágrimas) needs to be preceded by either the preposition con or de.

This is difficult.
I think "las lágrimas" is the subject of the sentence, as they perform the action of the verb "amenazar". And the woman is the DO, the thing/person on whom the verb is performed. The first entry in the DPD says the DO is the person who receives the threat. :thinking:

A esta mujer la amenazaban las lágrimas. = Las lágrimas amenazaban a esta mujer.
La amenazaban las lágrimas. = Las lágrimas la amenazaban.

Some other examples:
- Una voz me amenazó por teléfono (a mí).
- El vecino ha amenazado a los niños con quitarles la pelota. -> El vecino los ha amenazado.
- Hay un gato que amenaza con comerse a todas las lagartijas del jardín. -> El gato amenaza a todas las lagartijas del jardín. = El gato las amenaza.
- Los nuevos grupos delictivos amenazan la paz de nuestras ciudades. -> La amenazan


Now, to my mind, the OD is the harm and the indirect object is the person, only in impersonal sentences or when the IO is not mentioned; but in the original example, there is a clear subject and a clear person being threatened. :thinking:
- El cielo amenaza lluvia. -> The threat is the rain, which becomes the OD, although here we don't need a specific person to be threatened.
- A las mujeres se les amenazó que si denunciaban, las matarían. -> We don't have a subject here.
- Es muy fácil hacer que los empresarios nos apoyen; se les amenaza cobrarles impuestos y ya. -> Although it's implicit we will threaten the businesspeople, the sentence is formally an impersonal one.

Ah, when the tears serve as the subject of the clause, it's easy to see how the woman can be the direct object.
Thanks.

And thank you. I had never thought about how this verb works. :D